|
Ever wondered how you can become so engrossed by those changing lights on a box? I mean, it is definitely cool that the lights change depending on what you do. Still, none of the things you do to the lights will influence reality, except maybe for increasing your energy bill. Unlike movies, game graphics are not even accurate depictions of reality. If you look at it that way, it is amazing that video games are so engrossing and rewarding. So how does it work? What motivates us to play games?
First off, for gaming to be any fun at all for someone, they must be willing to allow something called “suspension of disbelief”. Many people do not, and as a consequence they do indeed see gaming as an absurd pass time where sensible human beings devote hour upon hour to an unreality that looks nothing like real life. When you allow suspension of disbelief then you let yourself be sucked in by the fantasy, instead of criticizing inconsistencies and absurdities innate to gaming. Everyone has a different capacity and willingness to suspend their disbelief. Gamers are notoriously talented at it.
Yet why do they do it? Gaming does not satisfy physical needs as most of us do not play games for food or shelter. Instead it satisfies psychological needs. No one knows exactly what those needs are, but there are some plausible theories out there. Biology might give us a stepping stone toward where the answer might lie. Koepp et al. has found that a high release of a certain neurotransmitter makes people feel very “rewarded”. I’m not sure if that is the same as “happy”, but it is a good feeling nonetheless, and it will make you want to repeat whatever action gave that feeling. The neurotransmitter in question is dopamine, and researchers found that a successful gaming bout puts as much dopamine into your system as a shot of amphetamines. Dopamine fulfills a variety of roles throughout the body, but the most relevant of those is acting as reward and reinforcement for positive actions such as eating and sex.
And gaming.
So why do our brains respond so positively to gaming? We all play games for different reasons. Different researchers recognize different patterns in our motivations. Richard Bartle defined four gamer personalities based on ones playstyle and motivation. He recognized the “Achiever”, “Socializer”, “Explorer” and “Killer”. You can find out which you are here. The motivations for the Achievers and Socializers are clear from the name. The Explorers are novelty-seekers, while the Killers look for competition. This model is appealing in its simplicity but I have not been able to find what psychological model it is based on. Without a psychological model to support it, we are left to wonder if, for instance, novelty-seeking is a basic human need, or why in-game achievements are satisfying at all.
One psychological model that is intuitively appealing to many people is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. There are 5 layers and the idea is that the lower down a need is, the more crucial it is to our wellbeing. We will seek to fulfill a lower need before moving on to higher one. Here the hierarchy is shown as a pyramid:
It is clear that gaming can hardly satisfy the first two levels. However, belonging, self-esteem and self-actualization can all play a role in gaming. Children asked about their motivations to play had widely different answers as you can see here (image is too wide for this blog).
“It’s just fun” and “it’s exciting” beg the question of why they are so fun and exciting. Some answers fit Maslow’s hierarchy, yet others do not. What basic needs are bored gamers fulfilling? And what about the need to escape reality? So-called “escapism” does not seem to be reflected in Maslow’s model yet some of these kids answer that gaming “helps me forget my problems”.
Other research looks at the gaming motivation of a slightly older target group of teenagers. See those results here.
The most popular answer again begs the question: Why is gaming a good way to pass the time? Why is it entertaining? Again escapism is featured with “Get away from everyday life, forget worries”.
Of course, you could simply state “fun” as a basic need in life. This is done in Max-Neef’s theory of Fundamental Human Needs where they recognize 9 needs: subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity, freedom. Here leisure could be seen as the need for fun and entertainment. Yet, why would we have any such basic need? It has no survival value. It seems much more likely that leisure activities are fun because they either fulfill some purpose that benefits you as a person, or because your brain is fooled into thinking so, like in the case of drugs.
None of the psychological models I could find seemed to explain why video games are so rewarding. On the other hand, Bartle’s gamer types seem to ignore escapism for instance. There is one other prominent gamer typology out there: BrainHex Class. It divides gamers up in seven categories: Seeker, Survivor, Daredevil, Mastermind, Conqueror, Socialiser, and Achiever. Find out which you are here.
The problem with this typology is that it again does not provide for an escapist gamer. Also, a survivor and a daredevil are both have a lot of overlap with one looking for the thrill of a scare while the other looks for the thrill of speed. Most importantly, the model does not relate systematically to human needs.
Both the Bartle Test and the HexBrain Class aim to classify types of gamers based (mostly) on playing style. However, there does not seem to be any coherent psychological model of why we play games. I am trying to think what one should look like. I think I might be on to something here. Stay tuned for my Theory of Gaming Motivation.
Reposted from my blog at Think Feel Play. Check it out now for the Theory of Gaming Motivation.
|
Did you check the "6-11 Framework"? While psychologically very basic and straightforward, I think it captures the fundamental reasons of why games are "fun" to play pretty well.
I googled 6-11 Framework but didn't find a good review of it at first glance. You wouldn't happen to know of a useful link to the topic, would you?
Hope it helps!
Of course, my definitions do not fall within any framework, but my point is that I don't see how they conclude what the 6 basic feelings and 11 basic instincts are. Any idea?
Its psychological basis is actually quite straightforward and is inspired mostly by the works of Ekman, Izard, Plutchik, Weiner and Graham. It identifies a subset of basic instincts and emotions which seem to be particularly suitable to videogames and then analyses their interactions to explain how a specific game can be so engaging and fun.
As for your observation, "Greed" and "Revenge" are not classified as "emotions" but as "instincts": revenge is an instinct clearly related to anger (which is classified as a basic emotion by most psychologists I know of) and greed is an instinct that can indeed be defined as the "need to overcompensate our needs" as you said. In the framework it is often linked to "collecting" and can be used to lead players towards a more "aggressive" in-game behavior.
I hope this clarifies your doubts a little and, of course, I'd be happy to discuss any aspect of my framework if it can help you in your research.
Right now I'm trying to formulate my own theory about why we are motivated to play games. The main reason for doing this is because I would like to find the answer to that question. My take on formulating my theory is simply to use it as a tool to figure out why we play. I don't mean my theory to overshadow others. I just hope it serves as an inspiration to some new thoughts on the matter. I consider it an indefinite Work in Progress as I'll update it based on any intelligent feedback and/or research results I find. I'd really love to hear what you think as you seem to be an expert in the field. You can find the theory at http://www.andlun.se/thinkfeelplay/?page_id=89, or read the more simplistically written introduction on the front page: www.thinkfeelplay.com. I mean the whole blog (and all my writing) to inform gamers with no background in psychology about the psychology of videogames, so please don't be put off if the writing style does not sound academic. I've read all the research papers I link to, and try to be as accurate as I can :)
I'm going to have a good look at the researchers you mention. I googled Ekman and recognized the research concerning universal facial expressions. I'll check out the others as soon as I can. Thanks for the tips!
Regarding the definitions I use and the overall background upon which the 6-11 framework is based, you can check the following excerpts from "on the way to fun":
http://www.akpeters.com/previews/Dillon_Introduction.pdf
and, most importantly,
http://www.akpeters.com/previews/Dillon_PartI_sample.pdf
all best!
It's one of the few studies I've seen by industry bods that attempts to use the scientific method to understand gamers' motivations: they form a hypothesis based upon an existing model, collect a significant sample size of user data, conduct statistical analysis and compare the results against their predictions.
They also make an interesting prediction off the back of their results, that there is a very large unexploited market of social/participant type gamers out there looking for content targeted at them. Given that the book was published in 2006, the same year as the the release of the Wii and DS Lite, and a year before Facebook started it's exponential growth I'd say they were pretty accurate.
I'd love to see more work of this type being conducted within the industry - if you have any relevant recommendations beyond those you mention in the post I'd be very interested.
I'll see if I can get a hang of any of the research papers by Bateman and Boon. Personally, I like to stick with those original research papers as source material. The amount of writing about research seems to be exponentially greater then the amount of research itself. And often much less accurate to boot. Because of that, I'm afraid I don't have many tips for you. I know there's a blog about the psychology of video games out there run by a PhD in psychology that might interest you as well. He wrote something on this topic as well (link)
Hope that was useful to you :) Either way, thanks for the feedback!
Acquiring a Power-Up or bonus points could be interpreted as food.
Finding treasure could be interpreted as finding food.
Basically, our instincts can't tell between things we can eat in order to survive and things we find that we perceive are good for us.
I wrote up my own theory on the topic on my blog. It's basically part two of this article, where I offer my own answer to the question why we play video games. I think you might like it :) It's completely based of the "survival" premise you mention yourself.
Is what we are seeing that the reasons people game today are different enough that the old constructs which developed from the rather limited audience (in both size and type) of the Pen and Paper world need to adjust? On one side you have the ultra realistic in graphics, actions and design of the modern FPS/action gamer and polar opposite are the 5 minute a session quick casual player. The separation of the gamers is also more prevalent than ever, in that man of these gamers don't seem to sample from the breadth of the market. They like what they like and don't like what they don't.
now, I have had a few to drink, but I am so great, its awesome.
Now, I work hard. I work extremely hard. I personally believe that when you work hard, you push yourself to areas you didnt know where there. In a game, when you push yourself, your rewarded with something, so to speak, then you do it again, your rewarded with more, next thing a week goes by, and you have everything in the damn game, all over you pushing your virtual self to get things done, and thats a promotion you cant earn in a week.
I personally believe that video games, to most people, are a hardcore outlet from the real world. You can become a fallen hero to seek vengeance on a evil entity, and slaughter thousands, because there evil, and you become more powerful, but its a feeling you cant have in real life.
You work so hard, and yet, there is someone who is ahead of you, but your just so happen to be a couple steps back, and you get screwed. It sucks, but its real life, it happens. In a game, that dosent happen, you are a born 1st place prodigy that just gets more awesome by the minute. Its a feeling that we get almost from sex, the fact that we know that we are needed, for even just a minute if need be. haha.
Anyways, I personally believe that video games are very very therapeutic, and I know your gonna call me a psycho, but it just helps. For some people, its our idea of a sunny day vs. going to the beach 24/7. I like games because I hustle hard, and I make alot of paper that dosent exist, it sucks, yeah. But when your this bad ass, who can cut someone in two with one swipe, you just dont care whats around you for one second in life.
Everyone, go buy a xbox right now. hahaha.
I'm very curious to know your opinion on how our social needs are met in the modern glut of single-player experiences. I've always thought that in single player games, a lot of our enjoyment comes from seeing the game itself as our opponent. Could that mean that, in a way, all gaming satisfied a social need, albeit in a very abstract fashion?
I think the social needs that are satisfied in single-player gaming are that the game *simulates the experience* of companionship or any other form of social contact. The concept of video games as "Experience Simulators" is part of how we regulate our emotions through video games. It's analogous to how some readers can feel that books can be their best friends. In the same way, the fiction of a game can be so powerful as to fool you emotionally into feeling a bond with fictional characters. I cannot source the following, but I remember from my media psychology classes that many people form bonds with fictional characters. It can go on to such a degree that fans will send angry letters to tv actors asking the actor why they did x or y on tv. They were playing a role! But some fans could not distinguish between the tv characters that they felt a bond with, and the actual real life actors.
In short, I'd say single player video games are powerful experience simulators. Many of us use this facet of gaming to regulate our emotional life (basically, to help us feel okay). One of the experiences video games can simulate is that of companionship (or another form of social contact). If the simulation is powerful enough for us, then we can feel satisfied in our social needs by this.
What do you think of this theory?
There is a book called Man, Play and Games by Roger Callois that I swear by. In this, he defines fun in 4 categories: chance, skill, mimicry and vertigo. As you examine the simulation of the social experience in games, I'm reminded of the descriptions of mimicry as a type of fun in that game. It is my belief that the power video games have over other medium is their ability to juggle all 4 elements of fun in ways no other medium can.
Please do keep up your work. We need more intelligent and thoughtful people involved in the development of games if we want them to reach their potential as a medium for art or entertainment.
I'll have a look if I can find anything by Callois. Thanks for the tip!